187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27059785)
1. Inter-observer variability in mammographic density assessment using Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) synoptic scales.
Damases CN; Mello-Thoms C; McEntee MF
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2016 Jun; 60(3):329-36. PubMed ID: 27059785
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Automated mammographic density measurement using Quantra™: comparison with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiology synoptic scale.
Yeo I; Akwo J; Ekpo E
J Med Imaging (Bellingham); 2020 May; 7(3):035501. PubMed ID: 32509917
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Intercountry analysis of breast density classification using visual grading.
Damases CN; Hogg P; McEntee MF
Br J Radiol; 2017 Aug; 90(1076):20170064. PubMed ID: 28613915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Mammographic Breast Density Assessment Using Automated Volumetric Software and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) Categorization by Expert Radiologists.
Damases CN; Brennan PC; Mello-Thoms C; McEntee MF
Acad Radiol; 2016 Jan; 23(1):70-7. PubMed ID: 26514436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The inter-observer variability of breast density scoring between mammography technologists and breast radiologists and its effect on the rate of adjuvant ultrasound.
Mazor RD; Savir A; Gheorghiu D; Weinstein Y; Abadi-Korek I; Shabshin N
Eur J Radiol; 2016 May; 85(5):957-62. PubMed ID: 27130056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Consistency of breast density categories in serial screening mammograms: A comparison between automated and human assessment.
Holland K; van Zelst J; den Heeten GJ; Imhof-Tas M; Mann RM; van Gils CH; Karssemeijer N
Breast; 2016 Oct; 29():49-54. PubMed ID: 27420382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Measuring mammographic density: comparing a fully automated volumetric assessment versus European radiologists' qualitative classification.
Sartor H; Lång K; Rosso A; Borgquist S; Zackrisson S; Timberg P
Eur Radiol; 2016 Dec; 26(12):4354-4360. PubMed ID: 27011371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Inter- and intraradiologist variability in the BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories for screening mammograms.
Redondo A; Comas M; Macià F; Ferrer F; Murta-Nascimento C; Maristany MT; Molins E; Sala M; Castells X
Br J Radiol; 2012 Nov; 85(1019):1465-70. PubMed ID: 22993385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A new automated method to evaluate 2D mammographic breast density according to BI-RADS® Atlas Fifth Edition recommendations.
Balleyguier C; Arfi-Rouche J; Boyer B; Gauthier E; Helin V; Loshkajian A; Ragusa S; Delaloge S
Eur Radiol; 2019 Jul; 29(7):3830-3838. PubMed ID: 30770972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Understanding Clinical Mammographic Breast Density Assessment: a Deep Learning Perspective.
Mohamed AA; Luo Y; Peng H; Jankowitz RC; Wu S
J Digit Imaging; 2018 Aug; 31(4):387-392. PubMed ID: 28932980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of variability in breast density assessment by BI-RADS category according to the level of experience.
Eom HJ; Cha JH; Kang JW; Choi WJ; Kim HJ; Go E
Acta Radiol; 2018 May; 59(5):527-532. PubMed ID: 28766978
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Does mammographic density remain a radiological challenge in the digital era?
Al-Mousa DS; Rawashdeh M; Alakhras M; Spuur KM; AbuTaimai R; Brennan PC
Acta Radiol; 2021 Jun; 62(6):707-714. PubMed ID: 32623914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. To asses inter- and intra-observer variability for breast density and BIRADS assessment categories in mammographic reporting.
Masroor I; Rasool M; Saeed SA; Sohail S
J Pak Med Assoc; 2016 Feb; 66(2):194-7. PubMed ID: 26819167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Inter-observer agreement according to three methods of evaluating mammographic density and parenchymal pattern in a case control study: impact on relative risk of breast cancer.
Winkel RR; von Euler-Chelpin M; Nielsen M; Diao P; Nielsen MB; Uldall WY; Vejborg I
BMC Cancer; 2015 Apr; 15():274. PubMed ID: 25884160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Reading High Breast Density Mammograms: Differences in Diagnostic Performance between Radiologists from Hong Kong SAR/Guangdong Province in China and Australia.
Li T; Taba ST; Khong PL; Tan TX; Trieu PDY; Chan E; Suleiman ME; Li Y; Brennan P; Lewis S
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2020 Sep; 21(9):2623-2629. PubMed ID: 32986361
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Classification of fatty and dense breast parenchyma: comparison of automatic volumetric density measurement and radiologists' classification and their inter-observer variation.
Østerås BH; Martinsen AC; Brandal SH; Chaudhry KN; Eben E; Haakenaasen U; Falk RS; Skaane P
Acta Radiol; 2016 Oct; 57(10):1178-85. PubMed ID: 26792823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Variability of Breast Density Classification Between US and UK Radiologists.
Alomaim W; O'Leary D; Ryan J; Rainford L; Evanoff M; Foley S
J Med Imaging Radiat Sci; 2019 Mar; 50(1):53-61. PubMed ID: 30777249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Breast Density Estimation with Fully Automated Volumetric Method: Comparison to Radiologists' Assessment by BI-RADS Categories.
Singh T; Sharma M; Singla V; Khandelwal N
Acad Radiol; 2016 Jan; 23(1):78-83. PubMed ID: 26521687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Variation in Mammographic Breast Density Assessments Among Radiologists in Clinical Practice: A Multicenter Observational Study.
Sprague BL; Conant EF; Onega T; Garcia MP; Beaber EF; Herschorn SD; Lehman CD; Tosteson AN; Lacson R; Schnall MD; Kontos D; Haas JS; Weaver DL; Barlow WE;
Ann Intern Med; 2016 Oct; 165(7):457-464. PubMed ID: 27428568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Automated volumetric breast density estimation: a comparison with visual assessment.
Seo JM; Ko ES; Han BK; Ko EY; Shin JH; Hahn SY
Clin Radiol; 2013 Jul; 68(7):690-5. PubMed ID: 23434202
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
